It would appear he is nothing more than a lying hustler that knows how to deprive people of their money and raise funds for his Democratic party. He hasn’t held office so he doesn’t know how to govern but he sure knows how to shuck and jive. With that, he manages to raise funds from fellow lying hustlers to make TV ads that pertain to nothing to make himself look good over his opponent. Watch the movie and read the articles. Tell your friends and low info voters. We need this guy as governor like we need foot fungus.

Comments

Written by Gaius Baltar about 3 years ago.

Much of the poll support for McAuliffe seems to be because he is not Cuccinelli, who has been painted as a lunatic. Cuccinelli will have to try to limit the damage here in Northern Virginia and try to win big down state in order to have a chance.

Written by Squiddy about 3 years ago.

“Much of the poll support for McAuliffe seems to be because he is not Cuccinelli, who has been painted as a lunatic”

Exactly right – only hardcore Dems are voting *for* McAuliffe – most people suspect he’s a crook, and has no relevant experience. But they’ll cast a vote for him anyway, because of the extreme positions Cuccinelli has been tarred with – they’d rather a crook than someone who’ll roll back women’s rights by 50 years. That’s not “me” saying that, just what I’ve heard.

Many, many voters will make their decisions solely on what they learn in ads – if Cuccinelli can’t refute the “anti-women” attack ads with his own counter-ads (and thus far, he hasn’t even tried), I don’t think he can win.

If Cuccinelli plays the recent EPA reg releases the right way in SW Virginia and with the VA rail/port shipping crowd, McAuliffe may be one of those Dems who wishes he had never heard of coal.

Written by ACTivist about 3 years ago.

I don’t know who is Ken’s strategist but it appears Ken doesn’t want to sling much “mud”. Trying to show there is an adult in the room. Except prior, recent campaigns have shown that the mud slinging greatly affects the empty headed voter and that is mostly what Fast Terry is geared to. Ken needs to avoid the “quality” of the vote and go after any voter that can fill in an oval. Ken can give us his stance while denying false accusations leveled at him. He also needs to link the suppression of the Dems in politics today to Terry. Let me see if I remember this: “Money talks, bullshit walks.” When you tie something to someone’s pocketbook, they tend to listen more.

Written by Cato the Elder about 3 years ago.

“Except prior, recent campaigns have shown that the mud slinging greatly affects the empty headed voter and that is mostly what Fast Terry is geared to. Ken needs to avoid the “quality” of the vote and go after any voter that can fill in an oval.”

That kind of garbage works in areas with dense, urban population (mob psychology 101). In Virginia, suburban independents swing elections. If I were advising Cooch I would tell him to go 1000% positive on education choice, low taxation, jobs, etc. etc. Remember “read the thesis?” Didn’t work because McDonnell drowned it out with positive jobs and transportation messages.

The people that are going to vote against the other guy are already set, Ken needs to give the fence sitters a reason to vote *for* him.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

Only a candidate with Cuccinelli’s weaknesses could make McAuliffe a contender.

They’re fairly glaring, aren’t they, Wolve, and I’m surprised that someone who follows Virginia issues as much as you professes not to be aware of them. I’ll give you credit enough by assuming your question is rhetorical, and not that you think Cuccinelli’s closeness in the polls to this Clinton bagman is a sign of strength.

Simple query, Old Chap. No diversion, please. You made a statement without elaboration or explanation . I am asking you to elaborate and justify so that others can see the basis of your assessment and debate if they so wish. Otherwise you have just slung a one-liner political mudball with no depth.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

It can’t be a “mudball” if it’s consistently empirically demonstrable. Every poll I’ve seen indicates that Cuccinelli is either behind or, in the case of some partisan polls (I’m thinking of Bearing Drift’s recent numbers on a 400 voter sample), only minutely ahead – like less than a percentage point. This is in a conservative state against a hobbyist who has never held office, never taken a role in local or state politics in Virginia, has toyed with running elsewhere, and who has been deeply involved for years in the seamier side of the always a trending tawdry Clinton machine. Tell me how that makes Cuccinelli a strong candidate.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

I submitted the last comment before I saw this morning’s papers. If anything I understated the degree to which Cuccinelli’s weaknesses are displayed in polling data.

McAuliffe is a joke candidate, folks. He would not be able to win (or lead in polls) against serious opposition.

Written by Squiddy about 3 years ago.

I agree with Larry Sabato on this one – the two parties have chosen candidates who could only win against each other – a moderate from the Republican party would’ve won by default against TMac, and any reasonably qualified moderate Democrat would’ve done the same against Cuccinelli.

Cucc’s recent “jobs” ads is striking the right note – “my focus will be on jobs” – now, if he’d just go a little further, and repudiate foolishness like transvaginal ultrasounds (I said it at the time — that legislation is the gift that keeps on giving — to the Democrats), he might have a chance.

If the Repubs lose the governors race, they have only themselves to blame.

Written by ACTivist about 3 years ago.

squiddy, I will always agree with you about the republicans, who have become brickheaded dunces on most matters political. I was one of the delegates that helped get Jackson the nomination. I like who he is, what he stands for/by and how he speaks. With his background in social GROUNDING, he is exactly the type of politician needed in government. The other boys and most of the GOP would have liked him to go away, which only meant I picked it right. I also picked Cooch. I like much of what he stands for and what he has done. I’m not as rabid as some about he being the best choice but he was the best choice from the stable. Yes, if he can dedicate his candidacy to the major issues that both hurt and help this great state, and not veer into “neverland” which takes him of topic, then he will win over the scumbag. Virginia used to be a conservative state but lost that standing back in the 80′s. Too many liberals and liars moved into metropolitan centers and prestigious counties (for what they had to offer from that conservatism) and changed the political landscape. Now those same liberals have been trying to convert us to the color blue (which is the color of depression and despair. Any wonder?) so that we may become miserable and inhibited like those areas which the liberals left behind. I tend to find that the more urban the area, the more liberal it is in this state. Conversely, the more rural, the more conservative. And rural people vote more than urban people. Unfortunately, there are more people in urban areas than rural. Common folk tend to care more about content and freedoms and tend to be more responsible as their labors don’t command the same pay scales as their urban brethren. I could look for the data but this has been my life’s experience through massive contacts and conversations with people. Only the easy prey and the staunch liberal voters will look toward Fast Terry.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

Why does it matter politically if a liar moves into a neighborhood? Can one expect some sort of random distribution of liars across the political spectrum, or are they all liberals?

Written by ACTivist about 3 years ago.

Liars affect all aspects of life. Someone who lies about a person or act, if it is political, would affect politics, no? As for the rest of your statement, lying is not a wholesome act. Politically, any side can lie but you usually find people clinging to their Bibles and guns as being mostly conservative and they don’t like liars and especially lying politicians. Being the great conservative republican you purport to be, do you not know this?

Written by Cato the Elder about 3 years ago.

“They’re fairly glaring, aren’t they, Wolve, and I’m surprised that someone who follows Virginia issues as much as you professes not to be aware of them. I’ll give you credit enough by assuming your question is rhetorical, and not that you think Cuccinelli’s closeness in the polls to this Clinton bagman is a sign of strength.”

Perhaps you could favor us with your impressive insight and enumerate them. I only see a couple, albeit probably fatal.

As I said before, Scout, no diversions. Forget the old trick of answering a question with a question. You inserted a personal opinion about Cuccinelli weaknesses, but you answered my query with polls reflecting the opinions of others, not yourself. I am asking you to elaborate on your own statement with your own personal and candid viewpoint as to what you believe makes Cuccinelli himself a weak candidate.

Written by Ed Myers about 3 years ago.

Since VA legislature is Republican and controlled by the social conservatives, there is a risk that it would veer from pocketbook issues to social engineering if given the chance. If Jackson and Cuccinelli win it encourages this group to reward their base with spoils. If TMac wins veto power will prevent the worse of the social engineering from becoming law. This tilts the middle towards voting D for governor no matter how bad a candidate is fielded. We’ll only have 4years of a bad governor but a set of bad laws can last a decade or two. Too bad Bolling wasn’t nominated. That would have changed this calculus.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

Wolverine: I have (and have had since he first ran for office in Fairfax) some personal misgivings about Cuccinelli, but my comment was directed at his electoral weakness as a candidate for Governor of Virginia in 2013. The polling data lead me to believe my views are valid. I don’t see how anyone could read them any other way than to reflect weakness in the contest. The fact that I have utter disdain for McAuliffe does, I confess, also buttresses my view that this is a weak candidate. I suppose if I had a higher regard for McAuliffe, I might give Cuccinelli more credit for being a competitive candidate. I simply don’t think this should be a close race, let alone one in which the Republican is running behind. The Dems handed us a gift. We refused it in favor of having our tummies tickled.

This is sort of like Tee-ball for adults.

Written by Squiddy about 3 years ago.

We don’t agree much, Ed, but in this case, I do – the heavy-handedness of the Republicans on social issues and their willingness to pass legislation like the aforementioned “Transvaginal Ultrasound before Abortion” bill has “lost” them not only the staunch pro-choice advocates, but those who support Conservative economic principles, but who also want the government off our back. Such intrusiveness makes people wonder what else might they do? A (D) of any stripe – even if he’s likely to get indicted while in office – provides, in some peoples’ views, a check against the most extreme legislation – which the Repubs have already demonstrated, hand them the power, and they’ll pass anything.

Many people view the Republican brand as being of the same bent as the Taliban – these extreme social positions are damaging the party, again and again. I think people are fine with what you do in your own life – but when you start attempting to put your moral views into legislation, people do get nervous.

Liberals won’t outlaw anything, they’ll just tax it or regulate it to oblivion, which seems, somehow, less confrontational (even if the end result is the same.)

The last poll I saw shows 10% support for the Libertarian candidate – that 10 percent should be natural allies of the Republican Party; instead, if they truly vote that way, they are, in effect, electing TMac.

But, Scout, that explanation does not give me your description of the actual and personal candidate weaknesses to which you allude. I suspect it is Cuccinelli’s stated views on the social issues to which bother you but of which you hestitate to speak aloud, n’est-ce pas? Or is it somehow his personal capabilities as a candidate, despite the fact that he outsmarted and slamdunked a two-time “my turn now” LtGov on the way to the gubernatorial nomination? Or do those alleged weaknesses result from something outside his control? I am asking for a precise definition of those weaknesses which have caused (I repeat: caused), in your opinion, the electoral polls to look as they do now.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

Gosh, I try to make it easy for you guys and to give you some credit for reading the papers and staying informed. And you just won’t let me go easy on it.

I’ll try again, although I think I’ve covered the subject. I think he polls badly with women, independents, and moderate Republicans, Wolve. I only get one vote, so my little personal views aren’t the issue I was addressing and are of no moment to you. I’m worried about a few hundred thousand votes from others.

I don’t think it would take much to outsmart Mr. Bolling, so that definitely isn’t on my list. conversely I give Cuccinelli no credit for having done it. That’s just inside baseball with State Central. I do think, however, that RPV would be very smart to use the primary process to build appeal and inform the general electorate. I’ve always regarded Bolling as a Richmond empty suit, waiting in line for his turn, stepping aside very quickly the minute he suspects that someone a little more capable might cause him trouble.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

Nobody professes to “liking” liars, ACT. But my experience (and it is only my experience, so, again, it’s only worth one vote) is that liars come in all shapes, sizes and degrees and that their presence is more or less universal across all strata of humanity. I have not noticed that people clasping Bibles or guns or both are necessarily more likely to be avatars of probity than those who manage to get around without those things at the ready. Nor have I noticed that either of those objects is a reliable indication of a person’s political views. Some of the most devout Christians I have known (both in practice and in professions of faith) were quite liberal politically.

Won’t talk, eh, Scout. Didn’t think so. Just another Rovean-style shiv aimed at the backs of conservative Repubs, then , I guess. You and I go way back in years. I remember well what the so-called “establishment Republicans” did to Reagan in 1976 and tried to do again in 1980. Smells a lot like that now.

I mean, really, old boy: “…the low barriers to entry in local Republican circles.” Good God, the ego is, like, wow! I am not a Repub Party man and never have been, but it is becoming increasingly clear how that “RINO” thing came about. Damn! When the whistle is blown for the VA Repubs to go over the top and attack the foe, somebody in the trench seems to start shooting at his own mates. Hell of a teamwork example.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

I didn’t realize I was under police interrogation, Wolve. I expressed a viewpoint. I backed it up with data. That’s all there is on that subject. I knew Ronald Reagan. I worked in that Administration. And Cuccinelli is no Ronald Reagan. (although, by today’s standards, Reagan would be a RINO).

The Party owes the electorate good candidates. If they can’t deliver on that, neither the Party nor the candidates are owed any deference whatsoever.

Stop the dancing, Scout. You claim from time to time to be a Repub, but your posts here and elsewhere are invariably slash and burn against the conservatives, Republicans or otherwise. Rarely does any effort against the Dem side issue from your keyboard. I am calling you on that. Bad form, I say. Divisive. Perhaps permanently divisive.

Written by Scout about 3 years ago.

I continue to grace the Republican Party with my presence, Wolve, not necessarily because I find it a salubrious venue at all times, but because of tradition, habit, and because of an affinity with what I regard as its core values: fairness, justice, and competent governance, both domestically and in the international arena. In recent years, particularly in Virginia, I don’t find the prevailing ethos particularly inspiring. There are a lot of people who self-identify as “Republicans” who appear to be working out some internal issues, and who don’t strike me as folks who are imbued with the strong civil rights, personal liberty, fiscal discipline and knowledge hallmarks of the better nature of the Party. But I do the Party more good by helping it get over its recent guttercrawls than I would by simply going along with it. Someday (after the hangover wears off) you guys will thank me.

Any political Party that has to start enforcing internal loyalty through oaths and purges is a very sick, ineffective party. Your reaction is inward-looking, and surrenders on the main purpose of the Party – to identify and support electable people of good character and life experience who can provide good governance to all the citizens.

If the Party nominates incompetent, unelectable candidates, I don’t feel particularly energized to sit around and pretend that they would be good for the electorate. The Party has to convince me that the candidates they put up are worthy of my support. If they are, I open my purse, knock on doors and pull the levers. I assume everyone else feels exactly the same way. Anyone who doesn’t want to cross that threshold level of being personally convinced should join The Church of Scientology or someplace similar where automaton-like loyalty is an understood part of the process.

I really don’t care that much what the Dems do. In your extensive Opp Research, you will note that I am not full of kind words for their side. I’m not part of that, so I do tend to focus on my immediate political neighborhood. If they crash and burn, that’s their problem.

To your final point, I certainly hope that I am being permanently divisive. I do try. It’s for a greater, more honest, durable and effective unity later on. But the real divisiveness is caused by a Party that loses its way, becomes enamored of buzzwords and slogans, and allows itself to be an accessory before and after the fact to narcissistic incompetents who want the label and support, but who are generally just in it for their own inability to do anything but run for office, and/or because they have internal issue of their own that they are trying to work out at taxpayor expense.

“Any political Party that has to start enforcing internal loyalty through oaths and purges is a very sick, ineffective party” saw an article recently that Huma Abedin was told to ditch her husband/father of their child if she wanted to stay on the Hillary! train. Seems like the Ds always have someone handy to throw under a convenient bus.

“the real divisiveness is caused by a Party that loses its way, becomes enamored of buzzwords and slogans, and allows itself to be an accessory before and after the fact to narcissistic incompetents who want the label and support, but who are generally just in it for their own inability to do anything but run for office, and/or because they have internal issue of their own that they are trying to work out at taxpayor expense.” And how is it the fault of the Rs that the hard left Ds are using the President’s daddy issues to implement an agenda? (other than not compromising with blatant bullshit, in order to try to look “reasonable” to people like you, and–in vain–to people who will never deviate from their playbook)

Well, Scout, it is a very basic concept. You try your best to keep dissent in the locker room. You do not run for the nearest public megaphone and call your teammates a bunch of “yobs” or whatever your preferred negative term of the day is. Quite frankly, if someone like that was on my team, he would soon be asked to start acting like a teammate or turn in his uniform. I am not going to mince words here. You have been pulling a Karl Rove mud toss on a regular basis at conservative Repubs here and elsewhere, apparently because you are miffed that many others have strong ideas and views not matching your own. Tough crap, old boy. It happens with any team. You either contribute what you can to victory despite the rough edges, even while trying to convince others internally to see your way, or you turn in your spikes and resign. You sure as Hell don’t engage in a constant public kneecapping of your teammates on the field or anywhere else. That is not just ignoring Reagan’s so-called “11th Commandment.” It is pissing all over it.

No, Eric, its a cooperative effort between individuals, all of whom are different in some way. It fails miserably when teammates are so busy throwing crud at each other that they forget the real fight. I know, I know, as a lib you want to see the crud throwing continue. You devil you.

No, not the coach. Just a spectator. With a nice number of all-star ballots to cast for a team that plays like a team. At least we are not yet at the MLB Dodger-Giant stage, where they are killing each others fans!

I’m a sharp observer and inveterate student of the game. If I did assume the coaching post, the first move would probably be to put the senior Senator from Arizona on the waiver wire; but I doubt if there would be any takers. Note the comparative silence from Sen. Graham lately? Getting strongly primaried down in SC, I believe. Could be his road back to the Class D.